I'd not restart numbering when listing different points: harder to respond.
1) It's true I am Luke's friend, and I'm biased towards him. But I'm also equally friend of, say, Peter Todd, and I'm also defending him personally. Overall, I think I have way more personal Bitcoin friends on the "Core" side. I'm not convinced it was a Core dev to rob Luke: I find it more likely it was the US Government, and that the FBI pointed towards Core devs to seed drama.
2) My involvement with OCEAN preceded the recent spam drama, and it was about DATUM and about the LN payout market (and about helping Luke, of course). I think the spam drama damaged the company (and my economic interests in it) a lot, but I fully understand it came from a place of principles, and I appreciate principles over profit, to a degree. I think OCEAN would be better off if this all debate didn't exist.
1-bis) He doesn't lie, and he doesn't claim that. He claims that data encoded before were "not sanctioned". I think this distinction is legally and morally meaningless. I think he's totally wrong.
2-bis) Because he agreed policy is the best place to spam mitigation. Consensus change is something he now wants due to the (imo absolutely misguided) CSAM scare.
[unnumbered]) Luke is very technical, and Mechanic was always pretty civil on the mailing list. But I find the two claims unrelated: Greg Maxwell is also pretty technical, and he has been not civil at all.
